Them: teacher-based learning

CONCLUSION
Importantly, past research has leveraged our rich understanding of learning to frame our exploration of teaching and basic understanding of its cognitive processes (Clark & Lampert, 1986; Strauss, 2005). However, in order to truly understand
the interaction between a student and a teacher we must focus as much effort on understanding the teaching brain as an independent entity rather than solely as a subordinate tool for the learning brain. Researchers need to explore the ontogenic and phylogenetic origins of teaching from its early development in toddlers to the expert classroom teacher.We must stop believing that an ipad application, smart technology video game, or even an avatar can teach. These objectsarelearningtools notteachers. They do not teach because they have no goal of human interaction or synchrony; they merely exist to export information to the learner. That is not to question the usefulness of these tools for both learners and teachers, but by believing the tools are teaching learners we are contributing valuable time and effort toward research and interventions that will not yield a better understanding of teaching. Researchers and policy makers must shift their focus toward understanding the interactions across multiple brains in order to better comprehend the complex social system of educating (Aoki et al., 2010). Through the use of DST we can begin to connect the study of learning and teaching to form a better understanding of how to effectively practice comprehensive brain-based education and truly understand teaching and teacher quality. Acknowledgments—Thank you to Kurt Fischer for his help and guidance during the preparation of this special section. Vanessa Rodriguez’s research on the teaching brain is supported, in part, by a grant from the Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching.
REFERENCES

1. 
   Abraham, R. H., & Shaw, C. D. (1992).Dynamics: The geometry of behavior
   
2. 
   (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.
   
3. 
   Aoki, R., Funane, T., & Koizumi, H. (2010). Brain science of ethics:
   
4. 
   Present status and thefuture.Mind,Brain,andEducation, 4, 188–195.
   
5. 
   doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2010.01098.x
   
6. 
   Ashley, J., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Cooperative problem-solving and
   
7. 
   teaching in preschoolers. Social Development, 7, 143–163.
   
8. 
   Astington, J. W., & Pelletier, J. (1996). The language of mind: Its
   
9. 
   role in teaching and learning. In D. R. Olson, & N. Torrance
   
10. 
    (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models
    
11. 
    of learning, teaching, and schooling (pp. 593–620). Cambridge, MA:
    
12. 
    Blackwell.
    
13. 
    Battro, A. M. (2010). The teaching brain. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4,
    
14. 
    28–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01080.x
    
15. 
    Battro, A. M., Fischer, K. W., & L´ena, P. J. (2008). The educated brain:
    
16. 
    Essays in neuroeducation. New York, NY: Cambridge University
    
17. 
    Press.
    
18. 
    Bloom, B. S., Engelhart,M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill,W. H., & Krathwohl, D.
    
19. 
    R. (1956). In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Taxonomy of educational objectives:
    
20. 
    The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain.